Ok, so how in the world does telling someone to deflate a few balls warrant the same punishment as someone who beats a woman until she is unconscious?
If the goal is for me to stop watching all sports period, they are close to succeeding.
Printable View
Ok, so how in the world does telling someone to deflate a few balls warrant the same punishment as someone who beats a woman until she is unconscious?
If the goal is for me to stop watching all sports period, they are close to succeeding.
How in the world does beating a woman unconscious warrant the same punishment as telling someone to deflate a few balls??!?! Priorities folks, sheesh
I'd take the opposite approach. Deflating footballs is cheating in the actual game; beating a woman is morally bad but irrelevant to the job. Using your logic, how's taking steroids or even throwing games worse than beating a woman unconscious?
I know nothing about this case but from what's been described alone one is cheating and so a matter for the authorities of the sport, the other is a matter for courts.
Without knowing the punishments I'd be OK with a ban for life for both. One for cheating the other for bringing the sport into disrepute.
He's been smacked with a meager (imo) suspension of 4 games.
That is a lame suspension for cheating and a lame suspension for abuse.
Not actually that simple guys. There is a lack of definite proof regarding Tom Brady's involvement.
Courts will likely get involved should be interesting to see how it plays out.
All the court can focus on is what is in his contract. NFL only needs to prove he didn't honor his contract. Reminds me of Lance Armstrong...
The commissioner shouldn't have been the arbiter of his own ruling. It will get a bit murky but really the case against Brady is circumstantial and the commissioner just wanted to be seen as 'doing something.' It wouldn't surprise me if the ass actually conducting polling or focus groups to determine the 'right' punishment for Brady.Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
Gladitorial games people...it's a heck of a lot easier to manage...
I'm shocked you don't think Brady's suspension should be lauded in school newspapers and taught in the curriculum. After all, it would definitely cut down on cheating, both professionally and in amateur football, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Since the commissioner is charged with enforcing contractual agreements it probably won't interest the court how the punishment decision was reached one little bit. If it goes to court I hope the NFL bans him for life. Break your contract then you can accept this slap on the wrist or go play for another league. Is arena football still around?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
If a lynch mob can end someone's life without a court trial which should be lauded in court why shouldn't a commissioner be the arbiter of his own ruling for a petty ban?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
If there was proof he actually cheated absolutely. Well at least in PE and for coaches on football teams.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
But I'm glad you've come around to my way way of thinking. If you are willing to to do it for football (and the limited importance that has compared to human life) I'm glad you are also supportive of doing it for things that actually matter. I await your post in my other thread. :)
Are you suggesting that if someone sues the NFL you're supportive of retaliatory life time bans??Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
Not knowing anything about the cheating and whether it was proven or not, but yes, one is for the courts, one for the sports authorities. Plus, a conviction for beating a woman unconscious by the courts would probably mean a sentence longer than 4 games, which makes the suspension moot too. Can't play from jail!Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
But keep in mind teams have high media profiles, so while punishing someone for their non-game activities is up to the courts, the players are representative of the teams they work for, so if you behave in 'unsportsmanlike behaviour' (in the broad sense), I see why they would give a suspension. It hurts the team in PR, after all. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if someone would be fired over beating a woman unconscious if he's a walking poster for your team - is that really what you want your public image to be associated with?
There seemed to have been enough proof for a private actor to take action. I thought that was sufficient for you. Or are you requiring a level of proof sufficient for the courts?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
No, no, we've already established, Lewk doesn't apply that standard doesn't apply to middle and upper class white men.
I've seen no direct proof of Tom Brady cheating - just some circumstantial evidence though. Someone breaking into your home? Yeah enough proof to blow 'em away.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
This again? Seriously if a middle class or upper class white man robs a home I'm all for them dying too. What part of my post history makes you think that I'm supportive of any robber surviving their assault on another's property?Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
What about someone entering your open garage? Is that enough to blow someone away? Just the other day my neighbors door was wide open and I peeked my head in to make sure they were okay. Is that proof enough to blow me away?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Did the neighbor know you? Had he had his stuff stolen recently? Were you trying to steal?Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
The answers are probably yes, no, no and that makes them all different from the example you are alluding to.
NOT AT ALL. This particular person, yes. Like I said before, this is Lance Armstrong all over again; using his celebrity clout to bully people to make his lies replace the truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
The fudge? Comparing Tom Brady to Lance Armstrong? Really? Man you must got some real hate for the Patriots. Probably because you dislike the name.Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
I think this entire thread is full of illustrations of the concept "you reap what you sow" :noob: It's kinda delightful :downcast:
I'll link to the pdf if you want but,Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Cheating is detrimental to the League. And,Quote:
Paragraph 15 specifically refers to the power of the commissioner
to discipline a player for gambling or drug related activity or for
"conduct reasonably judged by the League Commissioner to be detrimental
to the League or professional football."
Quote:
Under general association law, the commissioner should be accorded
great deference in intepreting the scope of his jurisdiction to act in any context
and will generally be judicially overruled only when his action is either
a clear abuse of discretion, is contrary to express language in the SPK or
other governing documents, 9 or is illegal.' 0 Nonetheless, commissioners are
well aware that judges are unpredictible, and thus they usually will not risk
a judicial incursion into their disciplinary power by acting in a marginal
case unless they are confident a court will uphold the decision or there is
some other important interest at stake (e.g., maintaining good relations with
officials, the press, or Congress).
But there is no proof Tom Brady cheated.
If the commissioner was so certain of the 'evidence' why did he not allow for outside arbitration? Why would he give the Patriots a talking point like that? Obviously if the case was air tight he could be seen as completely fair and even handed by letting someone else arbitrate. But he knows his case is on sand (especially when it comes to Tom Brady personally). This is all about NFL politics and the commissioners power trip and being seen as 'doing something.'
The fact that Brady flat out told the NFL and the world, even before the cell phone got broke, that his cell phone would not be part of the investigation. He failed to cooperate. That is enough to prove he was uncooperative with a sanctioned investigation. I find it hilarious that the player's union made a play to get the trial before a judge that has in the past sided with the player's union. The fact the judge turned it down says a lot about the possible success of the player's union in this case. I guess instead of banning him for life the NFL can just fine him to recoup their legal fees for this fiasco.
Still wondering if the case was so airtight why the commissioner didn't have a neutral arbiter.
Also he was under no obligation to give his cell phone. The NFL has leaked information is an unprofessional and inappropriate way. What is Tom Brady has some private texts with him and his wife that would be embarrassing? What if he likes forwarding dirty jokes? What if he bad mouthed his coach and/or other people in a moment of frustration over something? Turning off your phone to an organization like the NFL practically guarantees all of that would be released somehow.
"No explanation was provided for this anomaly." :oQuote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
http://mweb.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on...ling-narrative
Yeah okay so maybe Brady was trying to cover up texts between him and his lover who may or may not be gay, but more likely he was trying to cover up relevant evidence and has been punished for obstruction.Quote:
Also he was under no obligation to give his cell phone. The NFL has leaked information is an unprofessional and inappropriate way. What is Tom Brady has some private texts with him and his wife that would be embarrassing? What if he likes forwarding dirty jokes? What if he bad mouthed his coach and/or other people in a moment of frustration over something? Turning off your phone to an organization like the NFL practically guarantees all of that would be released somehow.
Never heard of redacting I take it. Okay yeah, I understand the privacy concern. But see, NFL aren't cops so they can't get a warrant to ask the phone company for redacted texts unless Brady gave them permission. He refused. He did not cooperate with a sanctioned investigation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
The neighbor does know me, and they did have a break in earlier this year - which is most of the reason why I was checking in. The example that I am citing had a man who claimed he fired blindly into his darkened garage. It very well could have been a neighbor checking in, especially if that neighbor knew he had been robbed before.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Don't look in Lewk's garage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
There is one thing about all this that really seems quite out of the ordinary. I've not seen any info on the science behind the pressure measurements. I mean how long do they let the ball sit in a room at the same temp as when the pressure was initially measured before they take a reading? Also dealing with a really small volume so filling up the guage when taking a reading affects my MTB shocks.